• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Homosexuality sinful and/or unnatural?

Is homosexuality wrong and/or unnatural?

  • Total voters
    128
CriticalThought said:
Just so we are all clear. mac is using a definition of "natural" from Natural Moral Law which in turn is derived from Aristotelian Philosophy. Most people stopped using his definition of "natural" in the Medieval ages. The Catholic Church and other orthodox Christian sects have kept it alive. His definition of "natural" is a teleological construct. He believes that everything is designed to serve a purpose and if it does not serve that purpose then it is an "unnatural" act. This form of Aristotelian Philosophy was abandoned by most of the world hundreds of years ago since it was based entirely upon speculation and conjecture.

For example, anal sex is "unnatural" because it does not lead to procreation. The rectum is not a reproductive organ. By extension, masturbation and oral sex are equally as "unnatural" since they don't lead to procreation. The hand and the mouth are not reproductive organs. In vitro fertilisation, which is the process of fertilising an egg with a sperm outside the body is also considered a highly "unnatural" act.

Most people today use an empirical definition of "natural". Empiricism is the basis of science, and it holds that observation and measurement are the key to understanding the world. As such, the modern definition of "natural" is that which is observable and measurable. Homosexuality is "natural" by this definition because it can be observed occurring prevalently in the higher animal kingdom.

So nobody is speaking the same language as mac. He is using an ancient and outdated worldview.
Click to expand...

For someone that is ignoring me...you spend a lot of time talking abuot what I say.
 
Redress said:
Procreation is not part of the definition of natural. Dirt is natural, but it does not procreate. Repeating it time and again is not going to make it suddenly a part of the definition of natural.
Click to expand...

That's because your trying to prove gay sex is natural by using a dictionary. You can't do that. The definition is too broad, and not specific to the subject of gays.
 
RamFel said:
That's because your trying to prove gay sex is natural by using a dictionary. You can't do that. The definition is too broad, and not specific to the subject of gays.
Click to expand...

So we cannot use the source that has the definition of words to get the definition of words. That makes sense...
 
RamFel said:
That's because your trying to prove gay sex is natural by using a dictionary. You can't do that. The definition is too broad, and not specific to the subject of gays.
Click to expand...

This applies to you as well. You use a definition of "natural" from Natural Moral Law which in turn is derived from Aristotelian Philosophy. Most people stopped using that definition of "natural" in the Medieval ages. The Catholic Church and other orthodox Christian sects have kept it alive. Your definition of "natural" is a teleological construct. You believe that everything is designed to serve a purpose and if it does not serve that purpose then it is an "unnatural" act. This form of Aristotelian Philosophy was abandoned by most of the world hundreds of years ago since it was based entirely upon speculation and conjecture.

For example, you believe anal sex is "unnatural" because it does not lead to procreation. By extension, you believe masturbation and oral sex are equally as "unnatural" since they don't lead to procreation. The hand and the mouth are not reproductive organs. Even In vitro fertilisation, which is the process of fertilising an egg with a sperm outside the body, would be considered a highly "unnatural" act by you.

Most people today use an empirical definition of "natural". Empiricism is the basis of science, and it holds that observation and measurement are the key to understanding the world. As such, the modern definition of "natural" is that which is observable and measurable. Homosexuality is "natural" by this definition because it can be observed occurring prevalently in the higher animal kingdom.

You definition is incredibly outdated and not used by most of the modern world.
 
Redress said:
So we cannot use the source that has the definition of words to get the definition of words. That makes sense...
Click to expand...

No. Not unless the definition is specific to the subject of gays.
 
mac said:
You need me to define your thoughts, red?
Click to expand...

You want to know if fasting is natural based on the definition I use, the one from the dictionary? I will answer on two conditions:

1) You can't say I am wrong based on some definition of natural you never mention

2) you have to give a definition of natural before I answer.
 
RamFel said:
No. Not unless the definition is specific to the subject of gays.
Click to expand...

Well then, give us your definition. If it is the same as the last definition you gave, it won't work.
 
Your Star said:
I didn't prove your point :lol:
Click to expand...

You did. You implied that because humans are animals And they commit homosexuals acts in nature, then human homosexuality is natural. You've proven this logic false.
 
mac said:
You need me to define your thoughts, red?
Click to expand...

1. Where are we supposed to get definitions if not the dictionary?
2. What is your definition of natural?

Such easy questions.
 
theplaydrive said:
1. Where are we supposed to get definitions if not the dictionary?
2. What is your definition of natural?

Such easy questions.
Click to expand...

Funny how they never get answered.
 
mac said:
You did. You implied that because humans are animals And they commit homosexuals acts in nature, then human homosexuality is natural. You've proven this logic false.
Click to expand...

No I didn't, because brain surgery, and talking over the internet are not the same as homosexual acts.

Good grief this is getting pathetic :doh
 
Your Star said:
No I didn't, because brain surgery, and talking over the internet are not the same as homosexual acts.

Good grief this is getting pathetic :doh
Click to expand...

Getting pathetic?

That ship sailed a long, long time ago.
 
Your Star said:
No I didn't, because brain surgery, and talking over the internet are not the same as homosexual acts.

Good grief this is getting pathetic :doh
Click to expand...

It doesnt matter. The appeal to nature doesn't work, end of story.
 
Redress said:
You want to know if fasting is natural based on the definition I use, the one from the dictionary? I will answer on two conditions:

1) You can't say I am wrong based on some definition of natural you never mention

2) you have to give a definition of natural before I answer.
Click to expand...

Use whatever definition you like...or none at all. Is fasting natural?
 
mac said:
It doesnt matter. The appeal to nature doesn't work, end of story.
Click to expand...
Nobody has appealed to nature mac.

This is an appeal to nature: X is natural. Therefore, X is good.

Nobody has gone to the "therefore" part.
 
mac said:
Use whatever definition you like...or none at all. Is fasting natural?
Click to expand...

Until you get around to answering my question, not answering yours.
 
Can't we all just agree that whether homosexuality is defined as "natural" or "unnatural" that has absolutely nothing to do with it being right or wrong.
 
CriticalThought said:
Can't we all just agree that whether homosexuality is defined as "natural" or "unnatural" that has absolutely nothing to do with it being right or wrong.
Click to expand...
I can agree with that, but I would still like mac to tell me where I can find a reliable definition of natural since it isn't in dictionary. It's too bad he's ignoring my easy questions.
 
theplaydrive said:
I can agree with that, but I would still like mac to tell me where I can find a reliable definition of natural since it isn't in dictionary. It's too bad he's ignoring my easy questions.
Click to expand...

You haven't figure it out yet? mac doesn't have a definition that he can use. His definition is the natural moral law one, but he realizes it is weak. He is throwing out ideas hoping one will stick and form the basis that he can argue for a particular view, but that is it. He has completely and utterly failed at this debate and the best he can do is drag it on and pretend like he knows what he is talking about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom